Newsletter February 2008

Trafalgar Fisheries have generously continued to donate the brown trout eggs free of charge, and we are also continually grateful for the efforts put in by the staff at the schools, at the Library and Study Centre, and particularly to Adrian Simmons of Wilton Fly Fishing Club.
People are getting excited as the eggs show the first signs of hatching, and there is a degree of experimentation at the various sites, especially at the Library and Langford, where an entirely closed system is being trialled which dispenses with mains water connections.
These sites are open to the public, and well worth a visit, especially when the fry are on the feed, which could be in two or three weeks time.

Pete Reading, Education Officer

Tesco/WSRT Environment Award

Thanks to very generous support from Tesco Stores Ltd, we were able to launch our Environmental Award scheme in October last year, and with even the limited amount of advertising that we could organise, we were pleased to receive a good range of bids from schools, colleges, conservation groups and youth groups in the area.
We limited the scheme to organisations in Hampshire, Dorset and Wiltshire, and have been able to offer cash support for several schemes, although we could only offer part funding to some.

Awards have been given to the following schemes;

Lorton Meadows Nature Reserve, Weymouth
This project involves enlarging an existing wildlife pond, and constructing a dipping platform for use by visiting schoolchildren, local community, and adults with physical and learning difficulties. The new platform will enable wheelchair access, and the enlarged pond is going to be relined.

Burgate School and Sixth Form Centre
Construction and planting of a bog garden alongside an existing pond, and purchase of equipment for surveying and monitoring pond life.

Kings Worthy Primary School, Winchester
To enlarge existing ponds by relining the marsh and pond areas, and to provide hard surfaces for access by children of all abilities, and include wheelchair access. The ponds are inside an old Victorian walled garden, and the site is used by local Conservation groups, Guides and adults with learning disabilities.

Piddlehinton Millenium Green
A former River Piddle water meadow in the centre of the village, the Millenium Green is managed for wildlife by the Trustees of the Green, who wish to carry out an ecological survey with the aid of CEFAS, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, and produce an illustrated information board for use by visitors, residents and school parties.
Villagers have already done much voluntary work and fund raising, and carry out regular maintenance and control of invasive such as Himalayan Balsam. Wild flowers have been planted, and bat, bee and bird boxes introduced.

Barton Primary School and Early Year Centre, Isle of Wight
This school is already a Silver Award holder of the Eco Schools Scheme, but we are providing funds for them to reline their existing school wildlife pond, and for the purchase of water butts to enable the capture of rainwater for the flowerbeds and vegetable patch.

Langford Trust Nature Reserve, River enhancement scheme
The Langford Trust manage a community nature reserve at Steeple Langford, in the Wylye valley.
The management committee have asked for funding to help bring the stretch of river into more favourable condition by continuing with in stream works, and we have agreed to fund the purchase of materials such as coir rolls, chestnut stakes and prepared brushwood faggots to narrow the channel and create meanders and sinuosity on the heavily dredged lower section of the fishery.
The stretch is managed as a sustainable wild fishery, with some public access and use by school groups in conjunction with the nearby Langford Lakes Nature Reserve.
I am sure you will agree these are all extremely worthwhile projects, and there are some we were unable to fund this year. However, we hope to attract even more funding and be able to have even more of an effect next year and in future years.

Pete Reading

Going With the Flow

Now there’s a title to conjure with! Just whom or what springs to mind when you hear that phrase. I’ll give you a few pointers and let you decide for yourselves what I had in mind when I wrote the piece. As members of the Trust I am speaking to the converted when you read my ranting but as this newsletter has a circulation some four times our current membership please bear with me as I attempt to spread the word a little further afield.
When you next lean over the parapet of a bridge and gaze longingly down into the stream beneath, as I am sure all the anglers reading this are sure to do, look at what lives down there in the weed below our bridge. Very often hidden from viewers on the balcony are the smaller inhabitants living amongst the weed and gravel. The juveniles of many of the fish we seek as anglers are down there in their juvenile states trying their best to survive in what can be a very harsh environment. Juveniles with less well developed muscles and fins require slacker areas of flow and perhaps more importantly a constant flow regime, no dramatic or sudden changes that will flush them down the channel. The fry of the cyprinids and the fry and parr of the salmonids are all dependent in one form or another on what the flow produces for them. The clear gravel riffles between the ranunculus as the flows drop back naturally in the summer are the preferred habitat of the salmonids. There they wait for the bounty the river sweeps down to them in the form of flies and nymphs. The cyprinids require the slacker areas to seek the invertebrates that live amongst the weed with the vegetative matter that is all swept down to them in a benign laminar flow. If we disrupt this balanced state of affairs we will risk damaging future populations of the species that all combine to make up the richness of our Wessex rivers. Opening a hatch too quickly or adding to low flows of summer droughts by abstracting the life blood of the stream. A myriad of actions on our part can impact on the inhabitants of our rivers and the combined impact may add still further to their plight. What we must ensure is that our actions do not expose the future generations to the risk of "going with the flow" in either being swept downstream or lost completely as rivulets dry out.

As I write this we are experiencing the first real rain for a couple of months and the Forest Streams will hopefully receive sufficient rain shortly to respond with a spate of high coloured water. In a natural sequence of events the seatrout will respond and run for the redds high in the headwaters of these streams. That is always assuming the rains produce sufficient flow. If the rain only achieves ninety percent of what was required to send a signal to the waiting trout the brooding fish will remain in the confluence pools of the main channel. What is so important is that the missing percentage was not as a result of man,s intervention. This same rain will hopefully produce sufficient water to bring any salmon, that have been waiting in the lower river, up to the higher catchment in readiness for their procreative activities that will take place around the turn of the year. According to research those fish would have been safer if they had been able to enter the middle reaches of the river when they had first felt the urge to move into freshwater from their marine phase. We are told that dependent on the size of the fish they are reluctant to move upstream when flows drop below a certain rate at certain times of year. Obviously a seven pound grilse will feel safer at lower flows than a thirty pound multi sea winter fish but the effect is the same. Should the trigger for running into the river be artificially influenced by man’s activities in abstracting water for the public water supply we are preventing those fish "going with the flow" If we continue to maximise our abstraction we will encourage nature to select fish more able to deal with the conditions and we will see MSW fish disadvantaged when returning to our rivers.

If the water below our bridge is clear enough just try and pick out the different types of river bed. Down there in the depths you will perhaps see; gravel in the streamy runs, clay or natural stone where the flow has eroded the bank and perhaps areas of silt or mud. A closer look at the areas of mud will show that they form on the inside of bends and under the weed clumps that have roots in the bed. The reason you might say is obvious in that they are in areas of slower water where the silt can settle out to form these banks and ridges. Obvious and correct, in that reduced flow will allow the silt to settle but why is the flow reducing? Is it a natural consequence of the streams physiology, inside of a bend etc or is it an impact of man’s intervention? Is the section you are peering into, upstream of a weir or hatch impounding water creating such a silt drop area? Or is man’s intervention more subtle and not so obvious? Has the flow been dissipated through the natural weed, that would normally coffer the stream into a series of braided channels, being ripped out by a weed cutting boat? Is the entire cross section of the river becoming slower due to our action in removing water for the public water supply? I deliberately say our action as it is for us to use that water is abstracted from our rivers. It is the impact of this latter reduced flow that is of increasing concern in that it’s very hidden nature risks an insidious change in the natural regime of our rivers. It may only be a few percent, at times of low flow however insignificant it may appear nature has developed its natural eco-systems over extremely prolonged periods and at a time of climatic change already adding to the stress on the natural environment to add to this burden has to be seriously questioned. So in relation to our original premise of going with the flow silt has to be viewed as perhaps, unfortunately not "going with the flow" with all the associated problems of compaction and changes of the natural regime.

As we peer down from our lofty perch we must not be too quick to look past the weed for upon this weed much depends. Weed growth gives a clear illustration of the differing nature of every river and stream, even within the same catchment stark contrasts exist. Weed is in most instances determined by flow and as such is dependent upon it, combined with photo period, to set its clock for growth, flowering and maturity. In keeping with nature’s clock all the invertebrates and dependent fish have developed to exploit available food sources equally reliant on the weed. As we move from bridge to bridge we soon notice the variations that are displayed below. If we travel from top of the river to the bottom we see a multitude of differing habitats that combine to make a complete picture. Right at the top in such streams as the Bourne, The Nine Mile River and the Fonthill Brook we have the very first rivulets that arise from the aquifers. Some of these streams are winterbournes that dry out as the summer advances and their inhabitants have to be rapidly responsive organisms or retreat with the flow. We have to treat headwaters with extra sensitivity as they are the infant river with the more responsive and delicate requirements of any child. The maturity of lower reaches better hide their true nature but as with any adult still very much deserving of respect and fair treatment. The mature river is a symbiotic result of a complex interaction of chemical, biological and artificial influences brought down from the headwaters. The size and robust nature of the middle and lower river hides the delicate nature of much of the flora and fauna associated with it. It is all too frequently believed that, as with the river itself. because it is larger the ecosystems are more robust, which is often not the case. The lower valley often consists of a braided channel system associated with a veritable labyrinth of ditches. Just as with the headwaters these ditches and smaller channels have ecology determined by the available flow, this ecological balance also prefers a stable flow regime without dramatic variations in water level and flow. Many of these side channels and ditches are shallow, warming quickly and providing vital juvenile habitat for numerous fish and invertebrates. This habitat, as with any shallow environment is susceptible to drying and overheating in periods of drought. Nature has developed a safeguard for the lack of flow and potential loss of water level in the production of rapid weed growth to coffer the ditches and ensure the water remains available in the ditches and side-streams. Unfortunately into this environment appears the EA weed cutting boats with the remit to reduce the water level to an artificially determined level. The problem with this new level is that it draws down the side-streams and ditches and along with the water the ecosystem "goes with the flow".

To those closely involved with the management and politics of rivers and fisheries it often comes as a surprise just how ill informed many with a vested or passing interest in the rivers remain. Basic understandings of many fundamental issues such as just what the various departments of the Environment Agency do? Who runs the fishery? What constitutes the basic ecology of the water they stand beside? Many remain blissfully ignorant of such issues, just wanting to sit back and enjoy the benefits. When conversations get onto the politics or more involved issues such as abstraction or flood defence a glazed look spreads across the countenance. Usually a free admission of a lack of understanding, qualified with the belief that someone else is looking after such involved and time consuming matters. Time consuming, that’s the crunch, just who is it finds the time to fight on behalf of fisheries and riverine issues. Well here’s the bad news for those that wish to avoid involvement; if you aren’t prepared to sacrifice some time and effort and just wish to sit back "to go with the flow" you run the risk of losing what you consider to be worthy of your precious leisure time. Apart from the owners of our fisheries, who obviously have a vested interest, there are many who get stuck in purely from an altruistic sense of duty. I all to frequently hear the cynical comments when these hard working individuals make decisions and impose rules and regulations that impact on individual enjoyment. People with the mind set to criticise, without offering alternatives, do not warrant valuable time expended on them, other than to tell them if they don’t like it get onboard and either learn the reasons behind such decisions or change the regime. The array of volunteer representatives and the few professional staff of such organisation as the Salmon and Trout Association are run ragged in trying to deal with the plethora of issues and legislation that impact on the fisheries of England and Wales. If you have enjoyed and benefited from participation in the world of angling and feel you would like to put a little back in return - get involved. If you do not have or can’t find the time to get personally involved for goodness sake support and encourage others to support those that are struggling on your behalf and join one or two of the organisations or bodies you feel strive to achieve objectives you would espouse.

Today’s hymn will be ......... sorry sermon over.

John Levell

WSRT Annual Charity Auction

This popular event will take place again after our AGM on the 28th March when John Penny’s priest will once more be in legal service. John Slader and Peter Hughes our highly skilled scroungers and procurers of desirable items need your help. Please try hard to secure or contribute items or fishing for the event and let John know by ‘phoning 01794 884736 or mobile:07764 625788.

Strategic restoration and management (STREAM)-Restoring the River Avon Special Area of Conservation

STREAM is a £1 million, four year partnership project focussed on the River Avon and Avon Valley. STREAM is supported financially by the European Commission’s LIFE-Nature programme. Natural England is working with project participants the Environment Agency, Wiltshire Wildlife Trust, Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust and Wessex Water.

The aims of the project are to demonstrate and monitor river restoration at six sites; link management of the lower reaches of the river with the floodplain; disseminate best practice to UK and European river managers and specialists; and to raise awareness of the river system and the project in the local community by holding open days and events. STREAM is working closely with the Living River project, which focuses on wider biodiversity of the River Avon system and engaging communities with its conservation.

Demonstrating river restoration

Restoration works at the six sites in the Avon Valley will be staggered over the four year life span of the project. To date, restoration works have been completed at four sites; The Broads, Upper Woodford, and Hale. Further restoration work will take place at Amesbury on the Avon and Blashford lakes on the Dockens water in 2008.

Survey and Monitoring

All too often restoration projects are completed with limited or no monitoring. Natural England have established a monitoring protocol that includes detailed assessment at 2 restoration sites, and rapid assessment at the 4 others.

Linking River and Floodplain

The management of the lower River Avon is intimately linked with the management of the grazing marshes of the Avon Valley. As part of STREAM, studies to identify ways to prevent fish entrapment and to prioritise ditch restoration works (using Somerley Estate as an example) have been completed. The report can be downloaded from the project website in spring 2008. Further work will be carried out in early 2008 to develop hatch operating protocols for typical structures in the river system.

Events

A number of site visits, seminars and community days for the public, land and fishery managers and river restoration specialists will be held throughout the project. Details of this years events will be available in early 2008.

More information

For more information about STREAM events and publications please visit our website www.streamlife.org.uk or contact Jenny Wheeldon on 01380 737023 or jenny.wheeldon@naturalengland.org.uk
More details about the Living River project can be found at www.livingriver.org.uk

A Little History - The Avon Valley
(This is a re-print of Appendix 1 of the STREAM report referred to above. Written by Dr David Solomon and published by kind permission of Jenny Wheeldon: Natural England,.)

The history of development of the river and its catchment are important to this study as they have a fundamental impact upon the aquatic environment. Although considered a most attractive natural feature, the classic chalkstream surrounded by chalk downland is in fact a man-made and highly managed environment. Man first appeared in Southern Britain about 700,000 BP, with Paleolithic artifacts dating from around this time found in the area (Hughes 1984). However, our ancestors probably made little impression on the scenery until Neolithic times (4500 - 2600 BC) when the hunter-gatherer lifestyle began to give way to agriculture. Fields were cleared in the natural forest of oak, elm, lime, ash, field maple, hazel and alder. However, limited tools meant that this process was slow until the Iron Age (750 BC-43 AD). The Romans introduced towns to the landscape and virtually completed the clearance of the natural woodland: however, some remnants of woodland remained and were managed for production of fuel and building materials. Since that time the whole catchment has been managed for agriculture, urban development, transport etc., and hardly a vestige of the pre-historic natural environment remains. Williams-Freeman (1915) describes the prehistoric status of the Hampshire chalkstreams: Two points he must thoroughly grasp; the impenetrable character of the natural forests, and the swampy, impassable nature of the river valleys. "There was in the old days no tidy undergrowth of the ten-year-old hazel, but a tangled mass of every shrub that is native to a wet climate, with fallen trees and decaying branches all bound together, living and dead, by brambles, woodbine and wild clematis; a jungle so thick that only along the tracks made by wild beasts, or up the narrow gravelly beds of the higher reaches of the streams, could it be pierced by man."
Control of the river and its riparian vegetation would have started with the dawn of agriculture in the area, as the valley floor would have represented the most fertile land. The Romans had water mills, and many mill sites were recorded in the Doomsday Book (1086). Although the buildings associated with these mills have long gone many recent mills are built on the same sites, which were in continuous use for at least a thousand years. Cross (1964) gives details of more than a hundred existing and recently abandoned mill sites in the Avon catchment.
Development of milling would have involved extensive channelisation work to concentrate the river into a single channel, generally along one side of the floodplain so that the head could be retained and exploited. Further channelisation would have been involved in the development of agriculture, to help drain swampy areas.
Development of water meadows arrived in the area during the 17th century. and these dominated the valley floor from the uppermost reaches to Knapp Mill for the next three hundred years. The organised flooding of riverside land began on the Wylye and Ebble in about 1635 and on the main Avon in the Salisbury area about 1645 (Aubrey 1847). Water meadows spread to cover about 20.000 acres on the Avon and its tributaries in Wiltshire alone (Fry 1937).
At first they were operated as part of a complex cycle of sheep grazing and hay production, and flooding took place primarily in the spring and autumn. However, by the middle of the l9th century they were being used mainly for cattle, and flooding took place on a discontinuous basis throughout much of the year.
Traditional flooding of water meadows involved large volumes of water being spread over large areas of land, and was a major hazard for downstream migrant fish, including salmon par and smolts, and juvenile coarse fish. Berry (1933) describes how fish may become stranded among the grass of the meadow, "a deservedly popular resort for several herons as well as a host of other feathered foe". Even those fish that managed to survive to pass on down the drawns (drainage channels) would be caught in special traps (called hullies or bunnies) set there by the drowners; the fish so caught were considered a perk of the job. As long ago as Victorian times angling interests on the Test paid £75 to two water meadow operators to limit watering to three days a week during the smolt migration (Grimble 1913).
Water meadow operation involved retaining structures to create the head for flooding of fields a little further downstream. A head of water was such a valuable asset for milling and water meadows that virtually the whole fall of the river was exploited and many disputes broke out between neighbours. Many of these head-retaining structures still exist and much of the natural head of the river is lost in steep steps at these places. This has played a fundamental part in destroying the natural features of the river. Another development that occurred at about the same time as the start of water meadow operation was the development of the Avon for navigation (Williams 1937). An Act of Parliament was passed in 1664/5 to make the river navigable from the sea to Salisbury but there is significant doubt regarding how much engineering was actually undertaken. There is clear evidence in the Britford area where the remains of a navigation cut and locks are still visible. Cross (l970a) states that two 25 ton barges ascended to Salisbury in 1684, but that floods around 1690 damaged the works to the extent that the navigation never re-opened. The fact that barges ascended to Salisbury does not prove that extensive works had been undertaken: Williams (1937) quotes an ascent by John Taylor by boat as early as 1623, well before any work was commenced. The extent of possible work within the study area is discussed in the full report.
More recent developments such as dredging of much of the river for land drainage and flood defence have completed the metamorphosis from a natural river system to a highly artificial and managed one.

The Regional Fisheries, Ecology and Recreation Advisory Committee (RFERAC)

The Environment Agency (EA) has the duty of maintaining, improving and developing fisheries. To help it do this the Agency is required to consult an advisory committee whose members also advise on conservation (or ecology) matters and water based recreation where these are affected by EA activities. The committee has twenty one members representing all kinds of fishery interest, navigation, recreation- which includes angling-and conservation. Members serve initially for three years and can be re-appointed for a second but not a third term. We meet three times a year (it used to be four) and for each receive a hefty batch of papers outlining the latest policy proposals and reporting on actions and progress. We are asked to approve rod and net licence fees and to scrutinise expenditure of this income together with the annual grant from central government. We have recently been heavily involved in giving advice on what proportion of resources and effort should, in the south west region, be spent on each of a range of activities such as fisheries enforcement, habitat improvements and events held to encourage newcomers to take up angling.
Of course a great deal of what affects fisheries and conservation is not done directly by "fisheries departments". The EA regulates water quality, river flows and manages flood risk and is increasingly concerned with adapting to climate change. These duties all impact on rivers and their wildlife and RFERAC is naturally always concerned to press for the duties to be carried out in ways that minimise harm. Past activities have often damaged rivers and in these more enlightened days the Agency is trying to improve, for example, over-dredged stretches. The most successful of these schemes are carried out in partnership with land-owners and river associations such as your own.
As well as trying to improve policy the Committee also raises new issues for consideration or seeks to achieve changes in priorities. One example is a new approach to the creation of new salmon and trout spawning gravels in rivers. On occasion we feel Agency staff are undervaluing the needs of the environment and we press for a harder line, often to the highest levels. However, we are not an executive committee so cannot instruct Agency staff to take actions. Members do not "represent" a club or association, but are chosen from a wide range of experienced people who probably do belong to some such group. Together we have something of value to say on just about any topic and collectively we speak for a wide and numerous body of people. This gives us an authority which Agency staff know they would be foolish to ignore- indeed we are all trying to achieve a better environment, so share far more in common than in difference. Some members speak for a special interest and their views will at times clash with others; this is right and proper and in such cases we pass divergent views on to staff members who thus understand the range of opinion.
We will be seeking new members in the spring to replace those whose terms have ended. Sadly, this includes your chairman Brian Marshall who has been an outstanding member. Pete Reading is a current member, filling a coarse fishery slot, but we will welcome new applicants from the South Wessex area, particularly those with an interest in migratory fisheries.
Our next full meeting is in June 2008 but before then a number of members will be contributing to the development of river basin plans ( part of the water framework directive process) by attending local meetings such as the one planned for Blandford Forum on 11th February. These meetings will give people the opportunity to say how they feel the ecological status of rivers can best be improved in their area and perhaps will help identify new partnership initiatives.
Finally, there is pressure on the EA to reduce costs and to deliver more environmental protection with less resources. The fisheries service must adapt and our advice, accepted by the Agency, is that it must concentrate on doing those things which only it can do and accept that others can do more as partners. This is happening already but has been a difficult transition with some staff unable or unwilling to loosen regulatory reins, which partners see as bureaucratic, expensive and unnecessary. In this future with more fishery work being done in co-operative ventures and to agreed plans, the need for advice given by RFERAC will be greater than ever.

Chris Klee Chairman RFERAC South West.

Hampshire Avon Roach Project.

In February 2003 the Avon was in the midst of one of the several major flood events to hit the valley within the space of some 12 years. As a consequence and because in times of flood such actions are deemed legal to protect private property, Wessex Water sought to solve part of the problem by pumping raw sewage into the river at Fordingbridge.
At the time, it provoked an extremely frustrating battle of words between the EA and us; the fire of frustration fanned by the constant side stepping of our complaint and repeated bucking of our invitation to a meeting.
We wanted to explain why we felt that these actions were not only unsustainable, but also added to the growing list of factors affecting coarse fish numbers and, in particular, those of the roach.
It was our opinion that roach appear more susceptible to these factors, given the unarguable fact, supported by the long held belief of anglers that the species was already in serious decline.
The EA however, emanated a perceived smugness, possibly fuelled by our frustration, knowing that we had no scientific evidence to substantiate our claim. Our only evidence being the fact that catches had plunged over the decades. This however, changed when the EA published its 2005 fish stock survey, confirming our argument by stating that it had revealed a "paucity of roach in the middle reaches" of the Avon (with 87% of all roach caught in the survey being taken either from Salisbury or The Royalty) and that "roach were caught in insufficient numbers to ascertain anything meaningful on the side streams." This handed us the scientific evidence we needed, rekindled our waning enthusiasm and became the catalyst for the Avon Roach Project.
While we had a notion of what we would like to achieve, we also knew that we must remain realistic. Hoping inwardly that we might one day re-populate the middle Avon would be romantic folly, to suggest it out loud, would be like putting one's head above the parapet wall, in the knowledge that somebody had the crosshairs of an elephant gun trained upon it. Therefore, we decided to do what we could, a little bit at a time, to see where it all would take us. It was suggested that because of its proximity to the Avon and because it was in fact Avon fed, that Crow Pool at Ibsley would make an excellent test site for the project. We, therefore, presented to Christchurch Angling Club, who control the water, and the EA, a set of proposals and objectives that we considered, if carried out sensitively, could possibly help set in motion the restoration of a self-sustaining population of roach in the middle Avon. Both CAC and the EA looked at our proposals with a good degree of foresight and agreed, in principle, to give us the go-ahead. We took great encouragement from this; it certainly felt already that we had come a long way from the frustrations of 2003.
We wanted to establish the viability of Crow Pool as a nursery, based on its relatively prolific population of roach, then aim to generate surplus roach for release into selected areas of the Avon. In conjunction with this we would assist the spawning and survival of fry, to replace these fish, by placing within the pool, wooden boards covered in artificial spawning media, on which we hoped the roach would spawn. Once spawning was complete, we would remove the boards and place them in fry tanks where the eggs could hatch in relative safety.
Permission was sought and granted for a test netting of the pool, the results of which were very encouraging, inasmuch as our beliefs were confirmed, in that it did contain a good population of roach of suitable year classes for translocation.
Sample fish were removed and taken to Sparsholt College of Agriculture to ascertain both the purity and health of the strain. The results were again, very promising. None of the samples collected showed any sign of hybridisation and apart from one parasite, which, we were assured, is quite normal, the roach were given a clean bill of health. At the same time, permission was granted for our spawning boards to be tested, and several were placed in the pool to see if the roach would use them.
We were initially slightly disappointed at seeing roach spawning on only one of them, but took encouragement from the fact that they had at least used one and that Crow Pool already provides excellent habitat for spawning roach, with willow roots and floating sweet grass in plentiful supply. The mere fact that it contains such a healthy population is confirmation of this; therefore we remain confident that our boards will do their job during the next phase of the project.
In addition to Crow Pool, other potentially suitable sites are under investigation to ascertain their viability for use within the project.
Throughout the spring and summer 07, we purchased three, 2 m x 2 m x 0.6 m, fry tanks, and have constructed a hatchery for the rearing of roach from egg to 1+. The tanks, in three tiers, allowing us to pump and filter the 6000 gallons hourly, have and are still being used to rear a small number of roach. While permission to lift eggs from Crow Pool came too late, and in the end would have been academic anyway, we were given permission by the EA to net several thousand pin fry. We wanted to see if it was possible to keep them alive with a view to releasing them back into Crow at a later date. We are pleased to say that we are delighted with the results. A few hundred of the fry survived, three quarters of those have subsequently been released. However, we decided to retain the remainder to see if they could be kept over winter and until they were 1 year old. We were warned, by Calverton, the EA fish farm, Sparsholt and various scientists that the attrition rate in small roach was huge, in fact, it is documented that only 1 in 7500 eggs reaches its first birthday.
At this moment, we have around 100 healthy roach left from the several thousand that we originally took. Ordinarily, in the wild, those 100 roach, if we manage to get them to their first birthday, would be the result of 750,000 eggs, so the numbers speak for themselves. We have worked extremely hard to not only build the hatchery, but also to ensure that the fry have had all that is needed for them to prosper. There have been substantial costs and we therefore, feel it is important to note that it is anglers and the tackle trade that have met most of those costs with donations and sponsorship, which we believe demonstrates the importance placed upon the project. With the hard work, there has also been an element of good luck and we have, by being in the right place at the right time, saved a fortune on the fry tanks. These alone would have cost £2000 apiece, new; we acquired them at a fraction of that cost. Pumps and filters have been an additional cost, met by our supporters, which to begin with was deemed beyond our pocket.
We have used old keepnets to make the spawning boards, and a request for these was met with a barrage of them donated by anglers, some of which were brand-new. Again, this shows a huge commitment to and support for, our efforts. This year, we intend to go further and propose floating the boards and lifting the eggs directly from the Avon itself, the progeny from which will be returned to the river.
The Roach Club has, and will continue to, spearhead the project, quite naturally some would say, but we will need continued support from all quarters to stand any chance of achieving our objectives. We had hoped to span the plunging void between club and association, to make this project neither about the angler, nor his particular affiliation, but about a river and the fish within it and to some extent we have achieved this.
We have the ongoing support of the angling clubs and tackle trade, the EA are actively encouraging us and angling, through this project and others, to take a hand in conservation strategies that may affect us all. The Barbel Society has also offered its full support, as have The Wessex Salmon and Rivers Trust, on whose committee we both serve. In fact, everybody involved with the project sees it as a positive move, and we have found little of the apathy that usually surrounds the sport. But, and there is a but, our fear is that restraints might be applied and our efforts strangled, and therefore we ask for your continued support and encouragement, in order that we be allowed to achieve that which we believe to be eminently possible. Precedence exists where it has been so successful, that cropping eggs on a yearly basis may no longer be necessary; what a wonderful position to be in and one that we can only aspire to emulate.
We pledge to continue with the project until we either achieve some degree of success, have our efforts strangled and/or derailed by short-sightedness, or until the sniper with the elephant gun gets a lucky shot.

Trevor Harrop & Budgie Price.

From Christchurch Angling Club

Having read through recent correspondence, kindly prepared by Brian Marshall, to be included in the CAC Salmon Fishing 2008 handbook, it became further apparent that the club could and should use its not inconsiderable facilities to promote the wider exploration of likely salmon holding water on its less fished stretches.
Historically the Avon has produced salmon throughout its length with some of the finest fishing being found as far up as the Trafalgar Estate waters at Longford.
Brian again reminds us that we are still on ‘thin ice’ regarding the river stock conservation limits and that we would be unwise at best to consider recent annual returns to be anything other than a glimmer. We feel it would be a positive step forward to see if we can encourage (or possibly bribe) our salmon rods to run their flies and spinners through some of the less publicised stretches, and in doing so turn up a fish or two from waters other than our Somerley Estate waters. We have decided in order to tempt our salmon anglers to consider such action we will put up for grabs a bottle of single malt whiskey (enter the bribe) to the first authenticated salmon from any of our following fisheries. Upper & Lower Burgate , Sandy Balls, Gorley, Lifelands and the Ringwood Fishery.
We have also prepared more detailed maps showing the named pools, access points and known lies on the Somerley Estate waters (many thanks to John Levell for his assistance in this). We are again looking to recruit further salmon rods and have continued to publicise the fact that a CAC salmon membership arguably represents the most accessible and best value salmon fishing available for miles around. With more rods on the water we hope to be able to gauge if the runs have increased and that fish are once again moving into the lies that historically produced fish.
Once again the clubs yearly coaching calendar opened on Sunday 3rd February with our Salmon Open Day at Ellingham on the Somerley Estate.
We invited all our salmon members (and prospective members) to join us on the bank to enjoy an opportunity to find out more about how and where to fish on our salmon waters, (Somerley and elsewhere). There were Spey Casting demonstrations and explanations on how to approach the sunk line, large fly techniques that are used for early season fishing on the Avon as well as the techniques used to take fish as late spring runs into the summer.
Looking forward to seeing you all on the bank.

Ian May, Christchurch Angling Club, Chairman.

Are you sure you are a member?

You are a very welcome as a reader, member or not, but as a representative, membership led organisation we cannot speak for you or work for you if you have let your membership lapse.
Please just think; when did you last pay your £10? If you cannot remember or it was in 2006 or before we would like you to pay now please. Preferably by standing order or the £100. Life Membership
. If you have never been a member please consider joining us in our efforts by filling in the form available on our web site www.wsrt.org.uk If you are not on the web phone me on 01425 485105
Thank you. We look forward to welcoming you. (back?)

Brian Marshall

WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE UPDATE - JANUARY 2008 What is WFD?

The Water Framework Directive is potentially the most important development in aquatic environmental protection and improvement in modern times. Whether that potential is realised will largely be determined by political will and adequate funding to deliver the Directive’s objectives. The headline objective is for all waters to achieve Good Ecological Status by 2015. Behind this simple statement lies a complex mix of politics, science and bureaucracy. This note outlines the current position.

Standards

As with all European directives much of the detail is decided at national level. Translation of Good Ecological Status into measurable physical, chemical and biological parameters is central to the UK approach. This has been led by the UK Technical Advisory Group. While much of their work is sound there is concern on a number of points, including:

• their refusal to include a clear Suspended Solids target - a serious omission given the proven damaging effects to fish and invertebrates of high suspended solids and associated siltation;
• lack of clarity on river flow requirements to optimise fish migration and production - this is exacerbated by the Environment Agency’s stated aim to focus on business and customer needs when assessing water availability
• the use of biological assessment of ecological status although there are now encouraging signs that poor biological quality will be addressed even where routine chemical monitoring shows no problems.

Another major concern is the designation of some waters as Artificial or Highly Modified Water Bodies - this can include reservoirs, canals and rivers used for drainage, water resources, hydrogenation and navigation. Such waters only have to achieve Good Ecological Potential - in effect if the use causes lower standards they do not have to be addressed if to do so would prejudice the use. Preliminary assessment in the South West suggests that over 40% of our waters will be so designated.

River Basin District Liaison Panel

The UK has been divided into 11 River Basin Districts for WFD management, approximating to the current EA regional areas. For each a Liaison Panel has been established to help produce and deliver a River Basin Management Plan - the plans are due for completion by 2009. Alongside representatives from industry, agriculture, local government, environmental bodies, etc Fisheries is represented on the South West Panel by Roger Furniss, Secretary of South West Rivers Association - if you need any further information he can be contacted at email@furniss2733.fsnet.co.uk

One role of the Panel has been to identify the Strategic Water Management Issues of greatest concern in the region. The list includes

• Abstraction and Low Flows
• Agricultural Pollution
• Urban Drainage and Highway Run-off
• Physical Modification of Rivers

Programme of Measures

Central to the achievement of Good Ecological Status/Good Ecological Potential will be the so-called Programme of Measures. This will be divided into

• M1 - measures already ‘in the bag’, eg the current water industry 5-year Asset Management Plan
• M2 - measures already ‘set in stone’, eg Nitrate Vulnerable Zones
• M3 - specific WFD measures yet to be agreed at national level - this is in effect the main measures which will have to be put in place to ensure compliance, eg phosphate stripping at Sewage Treatment Works. It will be driven nationally but RBDLP’s will be able to influence.
• M4 - local/regional measures which are led by the Panel, eg a focus on reducing suspended solids pollution

Environment Agency Position

As lead Government Agency the EA’s approach is important. In brief the 2015 aims adopted by their Board are

• >75% of rivers in England to be in the top two classes (currently 64.2%) - for Wales the figures are 96 % from 94.7%
• reduce by one third the rivers and lakes at risk from sediment from 21% to 10% - risk assessment and target figures under revision
• halve the reported failures against Environmental Quality Standards for 33 priority substances and 30 specific pollutants
• reduce by 15% discharges of 13 priority hazardous substances (the most damaging and persistent of the 33 above)
• reduce the proportion of over-licensed river stretches and groundwater units by 50%, partly through the Restoring Sustainable Abstraction Programme
• Drive down household water consumption to the level of best-performing European countries
• Remove/by pass barriers from 500 km of rivers to allow migration and sediment transfer
• Reverse deterioration in groundwater quality
• At least 80% of farms in Environmental Stewardship/agri-environment schemes undertake water resource protection options All spatial plans will contain effective water management policies
• A 30% reduction in pollution incidents from sewers
• Restore 1000 hectares of new habitats and 500 km of river

Funding

As with any environmental improvement clear standards and ambitious targets have to be mirrored by a clear funding and delivery mechanism. Unlike some directives, eg Bathing Waters, there are many causes of WFD non-compliance and many sectors involved, including Agriculture, Water and Sewerage Companies, Drainage Authorities, Industry, Local Government, etc.
Initial assessments are that up to £2,500 million pa will be required if all targets are to be met by 2015. Much of this will fall on the customers of the water/sewerage and agricultural sectors. SWRA is lobbying for a fundamental change of approach to helping agriculture by transferring some of the high profitability of the food sellers (mainly processors and supermarkets) to the farming industry where low profits prevent adequate expenditure on pollution control.
The Directive allows some leeway where technical difficulty or excessive cost prejudice compliance. This is where politics comes to the fore. Ministerial Guidance on the challenge of affordability and compliance was promised for November 2007 but is still awaited!! Public Consultation
Defra and the EA are committed to public consultation on major elements of River Basin Management Plans - although Roger Furniss attempts to ensure involvement of local fisheries interests it is also important that they take every opportunity to influence the outcome. Luckily in Brian Marshall and John Levell WSRT has two stalwarts to press its case.

Roger Furniss - Fisheries Representative-- South West River Basin District

CLICK, CLICK, CLICK, CLICK, CLICK.

If you stand perfectly still in almost any river valley in the country you may well hear that sound. What is it? It’s the irreversible clicking of the ratchet that is tightening its grip on our rivers.
When the question is asked as to what ails our rivers the answer usually contains mention of various factors but no one seems to be certain. Often we hear that there may well be several contributing factors that combine to have the detrimental impact we perceive. Just what are those contributing factors and just what effect does each have that creates this symbiotic relationship so perilous to our rivers? When any issue is singled out for attention we are told that the permissible operating limits related to discharges etc, as set by the regulating agencies, ensure that no "significant" detrimental impact will result from the activity. That’s good news for those that have had their tolerances to pollutants measured and evaluated and know what "significant" means to them. Perhaps not so good for the myriad of lower life forms, that form the base of the food chains, equally dependent on the health of the river and yet to be evaluated.
Who is measuring the "significant" impact on the delicate pheromones and enzymes that control the fertilisation and hatching of many invertebrates? Road drains CLICK? Nitrates CLICK? Acidification CLICK?
Who is measuring the symbiotic chemical impact on the fish ova and fry equally dependent on temperature and enzyme triggers? Agricultural pesticides CLICK? Pheromones CLICK? Phosphates CLICK? Silt intrusion CLICK?
Before we get to the stage of allowing man made detrimental impact that has no "significant" impact we have to consider the elements that are beyond our control; increased flood events CLICK, increased incidents of low flows CLICK.
If you add to this weedcutting, barriers to passage, exploitation rates, land drainage, flood defence, invasive species, mineral extraction, forestry, local authority planning (who seem to be totally unaware of the existence of many rivers). These are the ones that spring immediately to mind. Each one a "CLICK" and the one that is giving rise to the most concern at present is abstraction.
We are well down the road to establishing the abstraction regime for the chalk aquifers for the coming twenty five years. These are the groundwater reservoirs that determine the well being of the Avon and give the unique character deemed worthy of international conservation recognition. We are told the effect of abstraction can be spread over seasons by continued use of the aquifers. What it means in reality is that the impact on the natural regime can be better hidden for there is most definitely an effect on the natural regime. We are confidently told by the regulators the Environment Agency and English Nature that we can reduce the flow of our rivers by as much as 15% without having any "significant" effect; CLICK. That’s fine but the regulators have forgotten to ask the modellers of our future to incorporate the impact of the other "CLICKS" into their forecasts. No allowance for climate change in the next twenty five years, should we have three low recharge winters for instance! No information related to dilution factors of discharges from sewerage treatment works, which will have to deal with an increased population in the next two decades!
Each of the dozens of modelled runs, produced by the Ground Water Model, should have incorporated into them error factors related to each of the “CLICKS” that are strangling our rivers. Without them the scenarios are as much use as the modelled weather forecast I have been using to set the water meadow hatches. The local five day forecast, prior to writing this piece, predicted a minimum night time temperatures of +2 ºC we got down to -5 and every one was below 0. They have only been attempting to model five days ahead!!
Chocolate fireguard springs to mind.

John Levell

Nipping balsam in the bud

There is a real threat that Impatiens glandulifera is going to affect your fishing in the near future, but there is something you can do to avoid it! More commonly known as Himalayan or Indian Balsam, this plant is causing serious problems elsewhere in the country, and yet there is a chance that a concerted effort to control it on our Wessex rivers, particularly the Hampshire Avon, will avoid a major ecological disaster.
Himalayan Balsam at first seems to be an attractive plant, with glossy green leaves and pretty purple flowers, as well as a thick, sweet scent. The problem is, that when it takes hold, it grows with such speed and vigour that other native species are unable to compete, and the dreaded HB forms dense beds, particularly along ditches and river banks. The plant already has a strong foothold on many rivers, particularly in the Midlands and the South West, and I have become used to fishing in beds of balsam eight feet high on the Teme, where the banks are commonly overgrown with it.
I was dismayed in the last two years to see it take over the banks of the Dorset Frome, and now both banks are a continuous band of purple as far as the eye can see on many stretches. The Frome is a lost cause now, and effective treatment would cost millions. The damage that the plant will do is difficult to estimate, but it will be serious and long term, and it may not be easy to persuade anglers that fish populations are going to suffer.
The loss of a variety of native plant species will mean that creatures that rely on the diverse insect life such biodiversity produces must suffer. A river bank that once comprised a mixture of rushes, reeds, nettles, bramble and a whole host of minor species of plant will also have provided food for a range of insects and small mammals, and many riverine insects and invertebrates will have depended on certain species to survive. The effect on fish is hard to predict, but any loss of biodiversity will be bad news for them.
A real problem with HB is that it is an annual, so those lush beds of it, that grew down to the water surface, die back almost entirely in the winter, leaving bare banks exposed. Floods or sustained high water levels will mean that massive amounts of soil are likely to be washed into the river, and the resultant bank erosion not only destabilises the banks, it introduces extra sediments to clog up already threatened gravels.
Gravel spawners such as salmon, trout, barbel and chub are going to suffer.
The Hampshire Avon is a Special Area of Conservation, and DEFRA, the EA and Natural England have both some responsibility and funding to deal with invasive species, and Himalayan Balsam, as well as Japanese Knotweed and Giant Hogweed, is high on their hit list.
On the Avon, this is being delivered through the Living River Project, There will be a targeted effort from now on to raise awareness of the threats posed by HB and the other two key invasives, and there are plans to attack the HB menace in particular next spring, with a focus on the main infestations. At recent meetings to discuss the control and eradication programme, I made the point that anglers are going to be absolutely vital allies in this campaign, and promised to try and involve local clubs and associations. It may be that in the next few months, your club will call upon you to keep a lookout for the plant, and send that information to one central collation point.

www.wiltshirewildlife.org/invasiveplants

There are going to be organised work parties, especially in the Ringwood area, to search out and pull up the plant. Once you can positively identify it, it responds well to simply being pulled up from the base, and soundly trampled underfoot! I have pulled up plants from Burgate, through Ibsley and down to Ringwood this year, but a serious infestation is starting just above the Severals and on the Kings Stream. Please pull it up if you see it!
It would be a tragedy if the lush banks of the Avon were to be overtaken by this invader, and anglers have a chance in the next few years to show that they can be a positive force for environmental protection. So, watch out for more information from your clubs, the Wessex Salmon and Rivers Trust, and of course the EA and Natural England.
For more detailed information, contact;

Martin de Retuerto Wessex Chalk Streams Project martin.deretuerto@naturalengland.org.uk

Wessex

Considering this is the Wessex Salmon and Rivers Trust it seemed a good idea to do a little research in an attempt to give a clear boundary to our sphere of responsibility. I do not have the time to delve into the work of the scribes contained in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles so you will probably get the Wikipedia version. My initial thoughts immediately turn toward Winchester and to King Alfred ensconced on his Wessex throne in the Great Hall. Certainly a King of Wessex, when not burning cakes in Somerset, but not responsible for the foundation which preceded him by several centuries.

In common with most searches the best place to start is at the beginning and accordingly a trawl of existing literature on my shelves soon turned up a reference in Ernest Walls "The Salisbury Avon" to Cerdic first of the line of West-Saxon kings and the foundation of the kingdom of Wessex. It would appear that after arriving at Southampton in 495AD in the early sixth century Cerdic defeated the Romano-Britons in a great battle beside the river at what is described in the Doomsday Book as Cerdeford. Cerdeford is now what we know as Charford between Downton and Fordingbridge on our very own Avon.
Somewhere out on the water meadows of the Breamore Estate, that now serve as home to Butch Joint’s sheep alongside the Hale Park anglers, one of the most momentous battles of our past took place. I believe there are one or two anglers in that particular area who are well attuned to the ghosts of our forebears so they should have plenty to keep them occupied in times of slow sport. The exact site will remain lost in time; since the water meadows were constructed in the 16th and 17th century the river has been harnessed, controlled and diverted to suit modern mans agricultural needs.
Now for the rub; that’s all very well and fine if you disregard the current thinking of present day archaeologists and historical researchers who seem to be of the opinion that Cerdic wasn’t a West Saxon King and seems very unlikely to have formed Wessex. Current thinking is that the Kingdom probably came into being through the activities of various groups of mercenaries expanding and shrinking their area of influence. Loses a bit of the romance along the way I fear, I think I would prefer to stick with Cerdic!

Having decided that the founder lacks a little in the way of substance what of the realm itself? Unfortunately we do not appear to be on much firmer ground with this one either. At various times it would appear there have been found references to Devon, Cornwall, Somerset, Dorset, Gloucester, Oxford, Berkshire, Wiltshire and Hampshire all having at one time or another formed part of Wessex. The Tudor cartographer John Speed included Berkshire and Devon but not Cornwall and I believe Thomas Hardy preferred Speed’s definition. Such an area is expecting just a little too much and most of those areas have existing fishery interests well able to fight their own corner.

Well, what of our area of concern? I think that is best confined to the catchments of the rivers that have similar geographical characteristics based primarily on the chalk rivers of central southern England. That was the definition of a River Basin District as included in the inception instructions issued by Europe in relation to the Water Framework Directive. It seems a remarkably simple and sensible order of things; as to why the Environment Agency chose to ignore the directions and plump for an existing administrative boundary is not clear but ignore them they did. So we have our rivers that fit well into Hampshire, Dorset and Wiltshire and as such we have our natural sphere of concern.

Now all we have to do is discover just how the Wyvern came to be the heraldic symbol that adorns the flag of Wessex. I do have a clue in that the Wyvern is on the emblem of Leyton Orient football club!! On second thoughts perhaps another time

John Levell

We are grateful to Davis Fishing Tackle for their support of this newsletter.

Wessex Salmon and Rivers Trust, and the editor in particular, are grateful to all those who have contributed to this newsletter or provided information. Opinions expressed and/or statements made by individuals are not those of the committee of trustees collectively unless it is specifically indicated otherwise.